March 22, 2024 Court Decisions

March 22, 2024 Robert Abruzzese, Courthouse Editor

Second Department Appellate Division on Monroe Place.
Photo: Rob Abruzzese/Brooklyn Eagle

Share this:

Appellate Division reinstates jury demand in discrimination case against MTA

In a ruling on March 20, 2024, the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, reversed a lower court decision, affirming the right to a jury trial in a discrimination lawsuit brought by Michelle Blackman against the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) and others. The original complaint, filed in Kings County Supreme Court (Index No. 502489/14), accused the MTA, along with specific employees, of employment discrimination under both New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws, focusing on claims related to discriminatory hiring and promotion practices.

The trial court, led by Justice Gina Abadi, had previously sided with the defendants’ argument, striking Blackman’s jury demand on the basis that her joining claims for legal and equitable relief constituted a waiver of her jury trial rights. This decision was challenged and successfully appealed, with the Appellate Division clarifying the importance of the complaint’s factual allegations over its prayer for relief in determining the right to a jury trial. The appellate court held that because Blackman’s suit primarily seeks monetary damages for alleged discrimination, any demand for equitable relief within her complaint does not waive her right to a jury trial.

Case for specific performance in brooklyn real estate dispute reinstated

The Appellate Division recently stepped in to overrule a previous decision by the Kings County Supreme Court regarding a stuck property sale in Brooklyn. The case involves a company that tried to buy property from the National Society of Hebrew Day Schools Inc. back in 2016, but the deal never closed. The lower court initially agreed with the defendant, saying that it couldn’t ask for the property to be sold to him or for money damages because of a certain agreement they made after suing each other previously. That agreement changed some parts of the sale contract and set a new date to close the deal, which also didn’t happen.

The appellate court found that the evidence the defendants showed, including emails and contracts, didn’t prove they were right to stop the sale or that they followed the contract correctly, especially when they didn’t pay certain taxes they were supposed to. The court said that if a seller doesn’t act fairly, they can’t hide behind the contract to avoid selling the property or paying damages. The court decided that the request to force the sale and the claim for breach of contract should be heard at trial. The Appellate Division did agree with the lower court that the defendant couldn’t claim other types of compensation because the contract covers those issues.